The general rule applicable to all banking institutions which are incorporated is that they can acquire land only as permitted by their charters or governing statutes.1 They have the power to acquire land and buildings only for the accommodation of their banking business.2 It is a well-known fact that many banks have placed a large part of their capital in office buildings, a small part of which is used for the bank. But it is doubtful whether such a dealing can be justified without special power given in the charter.3 But where a bank has lawfully taken real-estate security, there can be no doubt of its power to purchase at its own sale.4 Or, if the bank has a lien upon real property, it may pay off prior liens in order to protect its own lien.5 There ought to be no question as to the bank's power to purchase at any execution sale, if the act be done to secure its own lien.6 While a bank has no power to buy land to sell it again, and while such a contract will not be enforced against either party,7 yet, unless prohibited by statute, the bank may take real-estate security or may take land in payment of its claim.8 If a national bank has loaned money to a purchaser of land with which to make the purchase, it may take the land in payment of its debt.9 It may acquiring real estate applies in an. other state. Metropolitan Bank v. Godfrey, 23 I11 579.

This case, extraordinarily enough, holds that the question maybe left to the jury.

16 First Presby. Church v. Nat. State Bank, 57 N. J. Law, 27, 58 N. J. Law, 406.

17First Nat. Bank v. Reno, 73 Iowa, 145.

18 Emory v. Joice, 70 Mo. 537.

19Gillett v. Campbell, 1 Denio, 520.

20 Morris v. Dixon Nat. Bank, 55 111. App. 298. The property here was board of trade options. This would seem to be a simple process for putting the depositors' money into grain speculations.

21 Bushnell v. Chatauqua Co. Nat. Bank, 74 N. Y. 290.

22 Stetson v. City Bank, 12 Ohio St. 577. Compare Mitchell v. Beck-man, 64 CaL 117, where it was held that after a long lapse of time the transaction would not be disturbed.

23 Interstate Nat. Bank v. Ferguson, 48 Kan. 732.

1 State Bank v. Brackenridge, 7 Blackf. 395. A law against a bank's.

2 Thweat v. Bank of Hopkinsville, 81 Ky. 1. Compare Holt v. Win-field Bank, 25 Fed. R. 812.

3 See, however, Bands v. Poiteaux, 3 Rand. 136, where it is held that a hank may buy more land than it needs and build buildings thereon and sell them out The measure seems to have been taken to protect its own building by erecting fire-proof structures.

4 Farmers' Bank v. Detroit R. R. Co., 17 Wis. 372; Martin v. Branch Bank, 15 Ala. 587; Ingraham v. Speed, 30 Miss. 410; Merchants' Bank v. Harrison, 39 Mo. 433.

5 Brown v. Hogg, 14 I11. 219; Zant-zingers v. Gunton, 19 Wall. 32.

6 Sherry v. Dunn, 8 Blackf. 542. The same rule applies to national banks. Heath v. Second Nat. Bank, 70 Ind. 106; Holmes v. Boyd, 90 Ind. 332; Roebling v. First Nat Bank, 30 Fed. R 744

7 Bank of Michigan v. Niles, 1 Doug. 401.

8 Thomaston Bank v. Stimpson, 21 Me. 195; Baird v. Bank of Washington, 11 S. & R. 411. The bank may agree to secure a release of a mortgage upon land covered by its own lien. McCraith v. Nat Mohawk Valley Bank, 104 N. Y. 414 It may take real estate as security, though forbidden to own it Alexander v. Brumnett, 42 S. W. R. 63. And if it takes real estate from a stockholder to cover a deficit it may hold it Brown v. Bradford, 103 Iowa, 378

9 Turner v. First Nat Bank, 78 Ind. 19.

take the land and pay to the owner the difference between the value of the land and its own claim,10 or it may purchase its debtor's property at an execution sale, paying for the land more than its debt.11 If a bank acquires land it may control it as a proprietor,12 and, of course, may sell it.13 If it sells, it may take a mortgage back to secure the purchase price.14 There will be no presumption of illegality in the transaction. The illegality must be made to appear,15 and this rule applies equally well to every other transaction, whether of a bank or any one else. Finally, it is said to be the law that even if a bank takes the land contrary to law, it gets a good title against everybody except the state.16 But this is not believed to be true where there is an acquisition of land in violation of an express statute.17